And related, from TPM:"Harry Reid just canceled Senate votes for the rest of the day, claiming that Scott Brown was using pending Senate business as an excuse to dodge tonight’s debate with Elizabeth Warren. "Updated URL

Well, I do think Elizabeth fairly smoked WallStreetBoy. She was a little stilted out of the gate, but Brown alternated between being unctuous (not surprising for a Big Oil guy) and abrubtly wedging in rehearsed talking points wherever possible. Both candidates had rehearsed, obviously, but it seemed Warren's audience was clearly the listeners, whereas Brown wandered between playing obsequious to his donors and then trying to chum it up with the kind of person who votes based on gas prices.

Has Elizabeth Warren Been Practicing Law Without A License?Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaign is, I think, going rapidly down the drain. On top of her affirmative action fiasco comes another scandal: it appears that she has been practicing law in Massachusetts without a license for some years.

Credit William Jacobson, who, like Warren, is a law professor, for the discovery. Jacobson has been one of the most effective members of the blogosphere over the last couple of years, and this story is a tribute to his dogged investigation. His initial post is here. Jacobson establishes that Warren is not licensed in Massachusetts, and never has been; that she is not currently licensed to practice law anywhere; that Warren repeatedly listed her Cambridge, Massachusetts office as her law office in court filings; and that Warren in fact practiced law out of her Cambridge office. If all of that is true, as seems incontestable, Warren has a lot of explaining to do.

It is important to note that Warren has done a considerable amount of legal work in recent years, and has been well paid for it. She was paid a fee by Travelers Insurance Company, to cite just one example, that was in the low six figures. So we are not talking about a casual, borderline situation. Warren indisputably is practicing law, and by her own repeated assertion, she is doing so in Massachusetts.

Why do you say misdirection? The opening post was a shout-out to Ned. Ned responded appropriately, and now it becomes clear that Ned was correct all along - Elizabeth Warren is fraud every which way from academia.

Now THAT is original. I'm sure you came up with it yourself, right? Because Ned, you are a lot of things, but one that you aren't is a parrot. It is eminently obvious to anyone even mildly familiar with your postings here is that everything you write is straight from the creative geyser that is your mind. There is no way you would ever resort to stealing someone else's turn of phrase. There's just no need. Originality, creativity, wit. You've got 'em all.

Now, if you don't mind: As an aspiring political commentator, I'd like to know -- where do you get your inspiration for such incredibly clever and original phrasing? I can't begin to describe how jealous I am of how original your words are.

Meade wrote:Why do you say misdirection? The opening post was a shout-out to Ned. Ned responded appropriately, and now it becomes clear that Ned was correct all along - Elizabeth Warren is fraud every which way from academia.